I have an idea. You show me where what I have said is wrong. They are most definitely critcisms - and respond to your own summary of Benjamin in fact. Though I have read him myself and I know what I say is relevant (to the extent what he says is clear).
I think it is a pity Benjamin is inflicted on students. I have sat in seminars where his work has been discussed. and have seen first hand the confusion he generates. He is one of those writers who can gives aesthetics a bad name. DA On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > These are not criticism - it makes no specific point - you would first have > to demonstrate that your characterizations actually stem from Benjamin's > work - > Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies > The Cleveland Institute of Art > > > > >> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >> Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:06:23 +1000 >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Presence >> >> Ah the good old 'I have undergrads who could do better' answer. >> >> But what about responding to the specific criticisms I have made? >> >> In a way I am glad this topic has come up. I had never really >> consciously recognised before just how limited Benjamin's outlook is, >> especially from a historcial point of view. It's quite surprising in a >> way, given that he was writing the 1930s and so much was known by that >> time about the attitudes of early and other cultures towards the >> objects we now call art. Malraux was certainly keenly aware of it and >> had integrated it well and truly into his thinking by then. Benjamin >> is still wallowing around in a basically 19th century "linear" view of >> history - not surprising really, I guess, since he is obviously stiil >> so much in the shadow of Marx. >> >> DA >> >> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> And this passes for a analysis and a polemeic - please I hav eunder grads >>> who can do better than this >>> Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies >>> The Cleveland Institute of Art >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:10:55 +1000 >>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: Presence >>>> >>>> RE: 'Benjamin used the word "aura" to refer to the sense of awe and >>>> reverence one >>>> presumably experienced in the presence of unique works of art. According to >>>> Benjamin, this aura inheres not in the object itself but rather in external >>>> attributes such as its known line of ownership, its restricted exhibition, >>>> its publicized authenticity, or its cultural value. Aura is thus indicative >>>> of art's traditional association with primitive, feudal, or bourgeois >>>> structures of power and its further association with magic and (religious >>>> or >>>> secular) ritual.' >>>> >>>> (1) I like 'presumably' experienced... >>>> >>>> (2) In 'primitive', and 'feudal' times there were no 'works of art'. >>>> Slight glitch in Benjamin's historical analysis there. >>>> >>>> (3) Why should any of this have anything to do with 'structures of >>>> power' ? As I recall, there is nothing in Benjamin to demonstrate >>>> this. (But what the heck, it sounds classy. And there are nice Marxist >>>> resonances - without actually having to invoke Marx...) >>>> >>>> (4) Re:"such as its known line of ownership, its restricted >>>> exhibition, its publicized authenticity, or its cultural value. " >>>> >>>> This is so hopelessly shaky historically speaking. For vast stretches >>>> of history and for large numbers of objects we now regard as art, the >>>> question of 'line of ownership' was entirely irrelevant. Ditto the >>>> notion of 'exhibition.' The statues at Chartres were not on >>>> 'exhibition', or Buddhist sculpture or so much else. That is Western >>>> post-Renaissance thinking. Authenticity?? The very notion would not >>>> have made sense. Ditto a million times over for 'cultural value'. >>>> >>>> Benjamin's' outlook is so obviously limited by the conventional >>>> leftist thinking of his times... >>>> >>>> There is more to say but I'll leave it at that. >>>> >>>> DA >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> Benjamin used the word "aura" to refer to the sense of awe and reverence >>>>> one >>>>> presumably experienced in the presence of unique works of art. According >>>>> to >>>>> Benjamin, this aura inheres not in the object itself but rather in >>>>> external >>>>> attributes such as its known line of ownership, its restricted exhibition, >>>>> its publicized authenticity, or its cultural value. Aura is thus >>>>> indicative >>>>> of art's traditional association with primitive, feudal, or bourgeois >>>>> structures of power and its further association with magic and (religious >>>>> or >>>>> secular) ritual. With the advent of art's mechanical reproducibility, and >>>>> the development of forms such as film in which there is no actual >>>>> original, >>>>> the experience is freed from place and ritual. "For the first time in >>>>> world >>>>> history," Benjamin wrote, "mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of >>>>> art from its parasitical dependence on ritual." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Derek Allan >>>> http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>>> believed to be clean. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Derek Allan >> http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm >> >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. > > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
